Back in December, France led a United Nations vote to officially decriminalize homosexuality. And while many Middle Eastern countries, as well as the Vatican opposed the resolution, joining the resistance was none other than the US of A. But that was back when the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations was a George W. Bush appointee. Now, we’ve got Team Obama reversing course.

At the so-called “Durban Review Conference” on racism and xenophonia underway in Geneva, Europe again put forward language condemning “all forms of discrimination and all other human rights violations based on sexual orientation.” According to UN Watch, “The Czech Republic on behalf of the E.U., with the support of New Zealand, the United States, Colombia, Chili on behalf of the South American states, the Netherlands, Argentina and a few others, took the floor in support.” [UN Dispatch]

It’s splendid that in the UN, the US now joins the western world in calling for an end to discrimination based on sexual orientation. It may be a harbinger of US policy in numerous other matters in which the UD discriminates against its gay citizens.

But read the original post — because of lack of support from the non-western world, the UN resolution did not pass. These resolutions may be only symbolic, but symbols are important.

Feb 20, 2009 at 1:09 pm · @Reply ·

RichardR

@ChicagoJimmy: Absolutely, CJ. If it upsets the vatican and the religious right, whatever it is, it’s a good thing!

Feb 20, 2009 at 1:10 pm · @Reply ·

Chitown Kev

Yep.

This was one of my barometers for the Obama Administration’s first 100 days.

Feb 20, 2009 at 1:47 pm · @Reply ·

RichardR

Regret above typo – not “UD” but “US”

Feb 20, 2009 at 1:58 pm · @Reply ·

Mike

From the wikipedia entry on United Nations.

“In addition to the member states listed above, there is one non-member observer state, the Holy See (which holds sovereignty over the state of Vatican City). It has been a permanent observer state since 6 April 1964,[13] and gained all the rights of full membership except voting on 1 July 2004″

With this in mind .. how the heck did the Vatican manage to “object” when they have no voting rights?

Feb 20, 2009 at 2:18 pm · @Reply ·

petted

@RichardR: The main problem is the UN security council because any security council member can veto any binding resolution and without the support of all members on the security council a bill is dead regardless that’s why they went with a non-binding resolution as it doesn’t require security council approval. Besides which as a non-binding statement its not subject to an up or down vote – either you endorse it or you don’t however there was another statement which objected to the LGBT rights statement by linking LGBT to pedophilia. With the US endorsement the total is 67 for the affirmative resolution and 60 for the other resolution for a total of 127, out of 192 nations, taking a stance on gay rights.

Feb 20, 2009 at 5:13 pm · @Reply ·

petted

@petted: Granted not necessarily a stance we agree with but that leaves 65 nations that could be persuaded to endorse the affirmative statement.

Feb 20, 2009 at 5:14 pm · @Reply ·

RichardR

@petted: Right, Petted, thanks, got it – the voting in Geneva was on would have been a sort of pre-resolution. My point was I’m pleased because of what the vote implies about internal US policy. Can’t even imagine how far away the UN (all or enough member nations) is from fully supporting gay rights. Religion, I fear.